Written by :
Published on :
Multiple judges indeed questioned whether Kalshi’s “event contracts” are basically indistinguishable from sports betting
At issue is whether Congress (via Dodd-Frank) intended to override states’ traditional authority over gambling—and the court seemed doubtful
Prediction-markets operator Kalshi on Monday appeared before justices on Massachusetts' highest court.
Justices appeared skeptical of Kalshi’s core argument that it is regulated only by the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission and appeared to be leaning towards upholding regulators' authority to ban it from offering sports-events contracts in the state.
The court compared Kalshi's offerings to that of traditional sports betting.
Heading into Monday's hearing, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell's office had challenged Kalshi and won a ruling from a Superior Court judge, who found the state was likely to succeed in arguing Kalshi's offerings constitute sports wagering requiring a license. In January 2026, a Superior Court judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking Kalshi from offering sports-event contracts in the commonwealth.
The state argued that Kalshi, which offers Yes and No contracts on most major sports events, should be regulated as a sportsbook.
"These prediction markets are illegally offering sports wagers," Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chair Jordan Maynard told WCVB's "On the Record" last month.
Multiple judges indeed questioned whether Kalshi’s “event contracts” are basically indistinguishable from sports betting.
At issue is whether Congress (via Dodd-Frank) intended to override states’ traditional authority over gambling—and the court seemed doubtful.
Polymarket, a Kalshi competitor, filed a preemptive suit Feb. 9, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The filing came immediately after the commonwealth’s early wins against Kalshi in Superior Court,
Massachusetts gambling regulatory body is widely heralded as one of the more receptive to customer concerns, becoming the first to require licensed sportsbooks to provide explanations for limiting winning players while requiring operators to offer each customer tools to control their own betting behavior.
The commonwealth requires operator-imposed limits when risk is detected, something prediction markets currently do not offer from the MGC standpoint. Strict funding controls, such as no credit card deposits, as well as continuous oversight, are also a foundation of the Massachusetts regulatory scheme.
Gilbert Horowitz, Gambling911.com
